Percutaneous closure of prosthetic paravalvular leaks: Case series and review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Paravalvular leaks (PVLs) are a well-recognized complication of prosthetic valve replacement. Most are asymptomatic and benign, but some may cause symptoms due to a large regurgitant volume or hemolysis. Medical therapy is palliative, while reoperation carries significant morbidity and mortality. Percutaneous transcatheter closure techniques, now routinely applied in the management of pathological cardiac and vascular communications, may be adaptable to PVL closure, potentially offer symptomatic relief. METHODS: We reviewed our experience with attempted percutaneous closure of PVLs, using data from medical and procedural records. RESULTS: Between 2001 and 2004, 14 procedures were performed in 10 patients, all under general anesthesia, with transesophageal and radiographic guidance. Mitral (9) and aortic (1) valve replacements were involved, both mechanical and bioprosthetic. A variety of devices were used, including atrial septal occluders, patent ductus arteriosus occluders, and coils (all of label use). Six had a single procedure, which was technically successful in four: in two, the PVL could not be crossed. Four underwent a second procedure, which was technically successful in three; in one the previously deployed device was dislodged necessitating urgent, but ultimately uneventful, surgical removal and leak repair. One patient had transient severe hemolysis, which resolved after 1 week. At 1-year follow-up (9/10 pts) three had died, five had sustained symptomatic improvement while 1 patient with a residual leak still required regular blood transfusions. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous closure of PVLs is time-consuming but feasible in selected patients, with a reasonable degree of technical and clinical success. A second procedure may be necessary and a variety of complications can occur.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".